Solo Scriptura and Sola Scriptura...is there a difference?

[brinny]

i can't find anything on Solo Scriptura

 

[Knee V]

The only difference is that one is Latin while the other is poor Latin.

 

[PreachingChristCrucified]

i can't find anything on Solo Scriptura

There is no such thing as Solo Scriptura; it's just something Keith Mathison made up.

 

[brinny]

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

i can't find anything on Solo Scriptura

The only difference is that one is Latin while the other is poor Latin.

Wiki didn't have a commentary on just "SOLO Scriptura", but from what I understand, the Protestant Reformation chose to go by Scripture only, while the Greek and Latin churches go by both Tradition and Scripture.
I could be wrong tho

Sola scriptura - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Solo scriptura)

Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by scripture alone") is the doctrine that the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness. Consequently, sola scriptura demands only those doctrines are to be admitted or confessed that are found directly within or indirectly by using valid logical deduction or valid deductive reasoning from scripture. However, sola scriptura is not a denial of other authorities governing Christian life and devotion. Rather, it simply demands that all other authorities are subordinate to, and are to be corrected by, the written word of God.
Sola scriptura was a foundational doctrinal principle of the Protestant Reformation held by the Reformers and is a formal principle of Protestantism today (see Five solas).

During the Reformation, authentication of scripture was governed by the discernible excellence of the text as well as the personal witness of the Holy Spirit to the heart of each man. Furthermore, per sola scriptura, the relationship of Scriptural authority to pastoral care was well exampled by the Westminster Confession of Faith which stated:


By contrast, the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox Churches teach that the Scriptures are not the only infallible source of Christian doctrine. In their view "the Church [...] 'does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honoured with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.' [...]

The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus' teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition."[1] These churches also believe that "'[t]he task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone[...]'",[2] in part because it was the Church that selected which books were to be in the biblical canon. Protestants believe instead that the Church passively recognized and received the books that were already widely considered canonical.[3]

 

[brinny]

ok, so sola scriptura = the Bible only. Thanks.

 

[PreachingChristCrucified]

ok, so sola scriptura = the Bible only. Thanks.

Yes, that is correct. But there is no such thing as Solo Scriptura; Keith Mathison made it up.

 

[brinny]

hahaaaa thanks. I gots a lot to learn

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Yes, that is correct. But there is no such thing as Solo Scriptura; Keith Mathison made it up.

So is he relating Solo as being the same as Sola?

I am getting more and more confused on this now

edit to add: According to this article, it was Douglas Jones who coined the term Solo Scriptura?

A Critique of the Evangelical Doctrine of Solo Scriptura

Keith Mathison​

Ironically, a similar drastic alteration of the classical Reformation doctrine of sola scriptura has occurred over the last 150 years, yet this has caused hardly a stir among the theological heirs of the Reformation, who have usually been quick to notice any threatening move against the Reformed doctrine of justification. So much time and effort has been spent guarding the doctrine of sola fide against any perversion or change that many do not seem to have noticed that the classical and foundational Reformed doctrine of sola scriptura has been so altered that is virtually unrecognizable. In its place Evangelicals have substituted an entirely different doctrine.

Douglas Jones has coined the term solo scriptura to refer to this aberrant Evangelical version of sola scriptura.5

Modern Evangelicalism has done the same thing to sola scriptura that Hodges and Ryrie did to solafide. But unfortunately so little attention is paid to the doctrine of sola scriptura today that even among trained theologians there is confusion and ambiguity when the topic is raised. Contradictory and insufficient definitions of sola scriptura are commonplace not only among broadly Evangelical authors but among Reformed authors as well.
In this chapter we shall examine this aberrant modern Evangelical concept of solo scriptura and explain why it is imperative that the Evangelical church recognize it to be as dangerous as the distorted concepts of solafide that are prevalent in the Church today.



.

 

[PreachingChristCrucified]

I am getting more and more confused on this now

I'm not sure that I understand it entirely. But it's not important; it's not a real term.

 

[brinny]

looks like LLOJ shared some info on it above, which might shed some light on the confusion, by Keith Mathison. Looks like Keith was making a point with the term solo scriptura......gotta finish reading it...

 

[Rick Otto]

The difference I'm aware of is that SOLO indicates scripture as the only SOURCE of truth.
SOLA indicates scripture as the highest authority on spiritual truth no matter where that alleged truth comes from.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

The difference I'm aware of is that SOLO indicates scripture as the only SOURCE of truth.
SOLA indicates scripture as the highest authority on spiritual truth no matter where that alleged truth comes from.

Ok.
So how many within Christianity use Solo Scriptura vs Solo Scriptura?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7526866/
Solo Scriptura...A heresy? [poll thread]

Originally Posted by Christos Anesti

*snip*

Solo Scriptura sounds like it would give free reign for a person to totally re-invent the Christian faith based only on their understanding of Scripture. No need to pay any attention to the historical Christian faith or what Christians have believed in the past.

​

 

[brinny]

LOLQ ok now i'm confused....solo scriptura vs solo scriptura?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

LOLQ ok now i'm confused....solo scriptura vs solo scriptura?

We could always make plain ole "SOLE Scriptura"

.

 

[brinny]

hahaaaaa

 

[brinny]

my typing is sooooo baaaad today

 

[Eseven2]

Eph 6:17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:

 

[tadoflamb]

Sola Scriptura is a poorly defined doctrine/praxis/ideology/methodology/plumbline practiced by protestant denominations.

Solo Scriptura is an even more poorly defined doctrine/praxis/ideology/methodology/plumbline practiced by individuals who have no denominational affiliations.

 

[SolomonVII]

Sola Scriptura in fact has been thoroughly defined repeatedly on these forums.
I am surprised that anyone posting here for over a half a decade is still not aware of that.

What is poorly defined is the paramaters of Sacred Tradition, which is a part of it, which is not.